Christopher Anderson1, Ryan Weber2, Darshan Patel3, William Lowrance3, Adam Mellis4, Michael Cookson4, Maximilian Lang5, Daniel Barocas5, Sam Chang5, Elizabeth Newberger6, Jeffrey S Montgomery6, Alon Z Weizer6, Cheryl T Lee6, Bruce R Kava7, Max Jackson8, Anoop Meraney8, Daniel Sjoberg2, Bernard Bochner9, Guido Dalbagni9, Machele Donat9, Harry Herr9. 1. Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. Electronic address: cba2125@cumc.columbia.edu. 2. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. 3. Department of Urology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah. 4. Department of Urology, University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. 5. Department of Urologic Surgery, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee. 6. Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 7. Department of Urology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida. 8. Department of Urology, Hartford Hospital, Hartford, Connecticut. 9. Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Previous studies have demonstrated significant variation in recurrence rates after transurethral resection of bladder tumor, likely due to differences in surgical quality. We sought to create a framework to define, measure and improve the quality of transurethral resection of bladder tumor using a surgical checklist. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We formed a multi-institutional group of urologists with expertise with bladder cancer and identified 10 critical items that should be performed during every high quality transurethral bladder tumor resection. We prospectively implemented a 10-item checklist into practice and reviewed the operative reports of such resections performed before and after implementation. Results at all institutions were combined in a meta-analysis to estimate the overall change in the mean number of items documented. RESULTS: The operative notes for 325 transurethral bladder tumor resections during checklist use were compared to those for 428 performed before checklist implementation. Checklist use increased the mean number of items reported from 4.8 to 8.0 per resection, resulting in a mean increase of 3.3 items (95% CI 1.9-4.7) on meta-analysis. With the checklist the percentage of reports that included all 10 items increased from 0.5% to 27% (p <0.0001). Surgeons who reported more checklist items tended to have a slightly higher proportion of biopsies containing muscle, although not at conventional significance (p = 0.062). CONCLUSIONS: The use of a 10-item checklist during transurethral resection of bladder tumor improved the reporting of critical procedural elements. Although there was no clear impact on the inclusion of muscle in the specimen, checklist use may enhance surgeon attention to important aspects of the procedure and be a lever for quality improvement.
PURPOSE: Previous studies have demonstrated significant variation in recurrence rates after transurethral resection of bladder tumor, likely due to differences in surgical quality. We sought to create a framework to define, measure and improve the quality of transurethral resection of bladder tumor using a surgical checklist. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We formed a multi-institutional group of urologists with expertise with bladder cancer and identified 10 critical items that should be performed during every high quality transurethral bladder tumor resection. We prospectively implemented a 10-item checklist into practice and reviewed the operative reports of such resections performed before and after implementation. Results at all institutions were combined in a meta-analysis to estimate the overall change in the mean number of items documented. RESULTS: The operative notes for 325 transurethral bladder tumor resections during checklist use were compared to those for 428 performed before checklist implementation. Checklist use increased the mean number of items reported from 4.8 to 8.0 per resection, resulting in a mean increase of 3.3 items (95% CI 1.9-4.7) on meta-analysis. With the checklist the percentage of reports that included all 10 items increased from 0.5% to 27% (p <0.0001). Surgeons who reported more checklist items tended to have a slightly higher proportion of biopsies containing muscle, although not at conventional significance (p = 0.062). CONCLUSIONS: The use of a 10-item checklist during transurethral resection of bladder tumor improved the reporting of critical procedural elements. Although there was no clear impact on the inclusion of muscle in the specimen, checklist use may enhance surgeon attention to important aspects of the procedure and be a lever for quality improvement.
Authors: David Lieberman; Marion Nadel; Robert A Smith; Wendy Atkin; Subash B Duggirala; Robert Fletcher; Seth N Glick; C Daniel Johnson; Theodore R Levin; John B Pope; Michael B Potter; David Ransohoff; Douglas Rex; Robert Schoen; Paul Schroy; Sidney Winawer Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2007-05 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Andrew C James; Franklin C Lee; Jason P Izard; William P Harris; Heather H Cheng; Song Zhao; John L Gore; Daniel W Lin; Michael P Porter; Evan Y Yu; Jonathan L Wright Journal: Clin Genitourin Cancer Date: 2014-01-23 Impact factor: 2.872
Authors: Marko Babjuk; Maximilian Burger; Richard Zigeuner; Shahrokh F Shariat; Bas W G van Rhijn; Eva Compérat; Richard J Sylvester; Eero Kaasinen; Andreas Böhle; Joan Palou Redorta; Morgan Rouprêt Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2013-06-12 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Peter E Clark; Neeraj Agarwal; Matthew C Biagioli; Mario A Eisenberger; Richard E Greenberg; Harry W Herr; Brant A Inman; Deborah A Kuban; Timothy M Kuzel; Subodh M Lele; Jeff Michalski; Lance C Pagliaro; Sumanta K Pal; Anthony Patterson; Elizabeth R Plimack; Kamal S Pohar; Michael P Porter; Jerome P Richie; Wade J Sexton; William U Shipley; Eric J Small; Philippe E Spiess; Donald L Trump; Geoffrey Wile; Timothy G Wilson; Mary Dwyer; Maria Ho Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2013-04-01 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Maurizio Brausi; Laurence Collette; Karlheinz Kurth; Adrian P van der Meijden; Wim Oosterlinck; J A Witjes; Donald Newling; Christian Bouffioux; Richard J Sylvester Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2002-05 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Karim Chamie; Eric Ballon-Landa; Jeffrey C Bassett; Timothy J Daskivich; Meryl Leventhal; Dennis Deapen; Mark S Litwin Journal: Cancer Date: 2014-10-22 Impact factor: 6.921
Authors: Murat Akand; Tim Muilwijk; Jan Cornelissen; Siska Van Bruwaene; Kathy Vander Eeckt; Frederic Baekelandt; Pieter Mattelaer; Raf Van Reusel; Ben Van Cleynenbreugel; Steven Joniau; Frank Van Der Aa Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2019-12-11 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Ben Valery Sionov; Matvey Tsivian; Tarek Taha; Roman Bass; Alexander Kheifets; Abraham Ami Sidi; Alexander Tsivian Journal: Cent European J Urol Date: 2020-11-06
Authors: Shonan Sho; Greg Yothers; Linda H Colangelo; Patricia A Ganz; Michael J O'Connell; Robert W Beart; Marian Hemmelgarn; Formosa C Chen; Clifford Y Ko; Marcia M Russell Journal: Dis Colon Rectum Date: 2020-08 Impact factor: 4.412